Ben C. Duniway

This case involved two consolidated eminent domain actions by the California Department of Public Works against landowner Neider concerning parcels adjacent to Highway 101 in Marin County. In the freeway case, the state took land in fee and temporary drainage easements for highway widening; in the drainage case, it sought a permanent drainage easement over the same area after deciding the easement needed to remain open indefinitely. The appeal concerned alleged errors in jury instructions on encroachment permits, the defendant's rights to fill ditches, and valuation of the taken parcels as commercial strips. The court held that certain requested instructions were incorrect statements of law or argumentative, found no prejudicial ambiguity in the judgment, and modified and affirmed the award of compensation in the drainage case.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Broadway-Hale Stores and the Retail Clerks Union over whether a collective bargaining agreement required arbitration of a proposed five-cent hourly wage increase after negotiations failed. The union sought arbitration following the employer's refusal, and an arbitrator awarded the increase to covered employees effective May 1, 1959. The trial court confirmed the award, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the dispute was arbitrable under the agreement's broad arbitration clause and the no-strike provision, that the arbitrator acted within his powers in deciding the merits, that the award was mutual, final, and definite, and that the state court had jurisdiction concurrent with federal courts under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc., rejecting narrower interpretations of arbitrability.

labor & employment

This case was a medical malpractice action brought on behalf of a two-day-old infant plaintiff who lost his glans penis as a result of a circumcision performed at defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The primary issue on appeal concerned the form of the res ipsa loquitur jury instruction given at plaintiffs' request, which stated that an inference of negligence arose from the events established by the evidence and placed certain burdens on defendants to rebut it. The court held that the instruction was erroneous because it failed to require the jury to first determine whether the factual conditions necessary for applying the res ipsa loquitur doctrine had been proved. Nevertheless, under the specific facts of the case and in light of the other instructions given, the error was not prejudicial. The judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved consolidated personal injury actions arising from a rear-end car collision, where the jury returned verdicts for the defendant driver. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence and that the verdict was against the law, and the trial court granted the motions, with later attempts to amend the minutes nunc pro tunc to clarify reliance on the evidence ground. The appellate court reversed the new trial order, holding that Code of Civil Procedure section 657 creates a conclusive presumption that the order was not based on insufficiency of the evidence when the minutes do not so specify, that the "against the law" ground does not support the order, and that the post-appeal nunc pro tunc correction was invalid as it would undermine the statute's purpose. The court noted that the evidence could support either outcome but the procedural requirements barred affirmance on the stated grounds.

proceduretorts & liability

In Budaeff v. Huber, landlords sued their tenants in ejectment to recover possession of leased property and unpaid rent after the tenants repeatedly failed to pay monthly rent due under a five-year lease for a rooming house in San Francisco. The trial court entered judgment for the landlords, and the tenants appealed on grounds including insufficient evidence of a proper rent demand, waiver of the right to terminate, bad faith by the landlords, and defects in the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the findings of adequate demands and no waiver, the complaint stated a cause of action, any pleading uncertainties were cured at trial, and there was no showing of landlord bad faith or improper exclusion of evidence.

propertyprocedure

Willie James was convicted by a jury of second-degree robbery for assaulting a victim and taking his wallet and coin purse. On appeal, he argued that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of a prior similar robbery to show common scheme or design, which the trial court struck with an admonition to the jury, and that cross-examination about a prior misdemeanor conviction involving another wallet was improper. The court affirmed the conviction and denial of a new trial, reasoning that the evidence of guilt was strong, any error in the stricken testimony was not prejudicial under the applicable harmless-error standard, the defendant opened the door to questions about the prior incident by his own testimony, and the trial judge had considered the issues on the motion for new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the estate of Thomas A. Sawyer, who died in 1958 leaving a will on a printed form that named his daughter Dorothy but made no provision for her and included a note explaining that naming a child shows the testator had her in mind and thus she would not take an interest. Dorothy petitioned to determine heirship, claiming status as a pretermitted child under Probate Code section 90, and the trial court agreed after considering the divorce file from her parents' 1918-1920 proceedings. The executor appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the will itself demonstrated the omission was intentional because it named Dorothy, disposed of the entire estate to others, and used a form for a married man with a child, rendering extrinsic evidence of intent incompetent. The court emphasized that Probate Code sections 102 and 103 require interpreting the will as a whole to give effect to all provisions, including the note.

family lawproperty

This case concerned an action by the state to collect from defendant Henry the costs of moving his water main in Marsh Road, which lacked any permit or easement, during reconstruction by the state under agreement with the county. The trial court entered judgment for the People in the amount of the reasonable relocation costs, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that because the defendant had no legal right to maintain the pipeline in the county highway, he could be compelled to remove it at his own expense or reimburse the state for doing so when the road was improved. Evidence supported the finding that the pipe was installed without authorization, resolving conflicts against the defendant's claims of prior permission.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by employee Bosch against third parties after a work accident, in which his employer's workers' compensation insurer Argonaut intervened to recover benefits paid. After the case settled, Bosch's attorneys moved for a share of attorneys' fees and costs from Argonaut's recovery portion, but the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the statute allowing such fees applies only when the employer/insurer fails to join with its own attorney, and here Argonaut had competent independent representation throughout the proceedings.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the appeal of a defendant convicted on two counts of selling heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11501, based on transactions facilitated by a police informant under surveillance by San Francisco officers. The court affirmed the conviction on the February 29 count because continuous observation showed the informant receive heroin from the defendant in a hand exchange after the defendant entered a hotel, with the money gone afterward. It reversed the conviction on the March 23 count because the evidence, though showing the informant obtained heroin while in a car with the defendant and another man, did not sufficiently establish that it came from the defendant rather than the other occupant. The court also found the defendant's verbal waiver of a jury trial effective under the state constitution.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a real estate broker suing property owners for a commission after procuring an exchange agreement for their motel property. The owners appealed a judgment in favor of the broker, arguing the commission was payable only from sums received from the exchange, which never occurred due to an acceleration clause in a trust deed, and that rescission of the agreement defeated the broker's rights. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the contract language made the commission due upon execution of the agreement by all parties, secured by a personal note from the owners with the buyers' note as collateral. The core reasoning was based on the explicit terms of the owners' acceptance in the exchange agreement stating the commission became due on signing, along with provisions preserving the commission obligation even if the deal failed due to title issues.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a prisoner's petition challenging decisions by the California Adult Authority regarding his parole eligibility and sentence term after his 1958 convictions for vehicular manslaughter and failure to stop at an accident. The petitioner alleged various issues, including the use of his arrest record, comments by board members, unequal treatment compared to other inmates, his medical condition, and alleged procedural irregularities, seeking relief via writ of mandate (potentially treated as habeas corpus). The court affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that the petitioner had no vested right to a shorter term or parole and that the Adult Authority's broad discretion under the indeterminate sentencing law allowed it to consider his record, deny parole, and maintain the maximum term without abusing that discretion. None of the factual allegations demonstrated any entitlement to relief or improper action by the Authority.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary, violation of Penal Code section 288a, and rape but not guilty by reason of insanity. After a trial on the sanity issue featuring conflicting expert psychiatric testimony, the trial court found the defendant legally sane and imposed sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admissibility and weight of certain psychiatric testimony regarding the legal definition of insanity and argued that his guilty plea was involuntary due to reliance on initial psychiatric reports finding insanity. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the testimony was relevant and properly considered as expert explanation, that the defendant received a full trial on sanity, and that no motion to withdraw the plea had been made below.

criminal lawprocedure

The plaintiff sued the City and County of San Francisco for injuries sustained when he slipped on a puddle of vomit on a public sidewalk while approaching a municipal bus stop to board a Number 15 bus. The case was tried on two theories: liability as a common carrier under Civil Code section 2100 and liability under the Public Liability Act (Government Code section 53051) for a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient on both theories because the plaintiff had not yet become a passenger and there was no proof that the city had actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk condition or that it created the hazard. The court also addressed the effect of Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District on governmental immunity but concluded that the Public Liability Act still governed and required the plaintiff to meet its conditions.

torts & liability

In this divorce action, both spouses sought dissolution on grounds of extreme cruelty, and the trial court granted each a divorce while dividing their property and awarding the wife temporary alimony. The wife appealed, raising claims of unfair trial, erroneous exclusion of evidence of adulterous conduct, improper findings on the character of the home, inadequate division of community assets including life insurance policies, and improper present disposition of property in the interlocutory judgment. The appellate court found no bias or prejudicial evidentiary error and upheld the mutual divorce decrees under the discretionary standard of De Burgh v. De Burgh, but identified errors in the community-property allocation for the insurance policy and in ordering immediate property transfers before final judgment. It therefore modified the judgment to award the wife an offset for her community interest in the policy and to defer property provisions until entry of a final decree, then affirmed the judgment as modified.

family lawproperty

The case involved a plaintiff who claimed to be the pretermitted daughter of Ernest Torregano and sought to impose a constructive trust on estate assets already distributed to the defendant residuary legatee, set aside prior probate decrees of distribution, and recover damages, alleging fraud and lack of notice regarding the decedent's death and will. The trial court had granted judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action and sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to the others. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissals of the first and fifth causes of action but reversed as to the second, third, and fourth, allowing leave to amend. The core reasoning was that probate decrees must be treated as final to protect the orderly administration of estates and security of titles, and the complaint failed to allege sufficient extrinsic fraud or mistake to permit a collateral attack in equity, as the allegations regarding lack of notice and conspiracy did not establish a basis for relief beyond what the probate court could address.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a mechanic's lien action by plaintiff Rodoni against property owner CustomBilt Homes to recover for tractor and bulldozer work performed on a subdivision development. The trial court found that Rodoni was an employee of Harbor Engineers rather than a licensed contractor, allowing him to maintain the action under the Contractors' Licensing Law despite lacking a license, and entered judgment in his favor. On appeal, the court upheld the employee finding based on evidence of hourly pay rates, direct supervision by Harbor, and the nature of the work arrangement, which supported the lien against the owner. However, it modified the judgment to eliminate the award of interest from the date the lien claim was filed, reasoning that the portion of the debt attributable to the owner's contract versus a separate city contract was not sufficiently certain under Civil Code section 3287. The modified judgment was affirmed.

propertylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned plaintiff Thompson's claim against California Brewing Co. for the use of his submitted idea to advertise beer under two labels, one targeted at men, based on an implied-in-fact contract to pay for the idea if used. After a prior appeal allowed amendment to address the statute of limitations, the trial court granted a nonsuit on the remaining contract count, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the two-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 339 began running when defendants first used the idea more than two years before filing, as there was no evidence of an implied term allowing a free test period before any obligation to pay arose. The reasoning emphasized that absent such a contractual understanding, the initial use constituted a breach triggering the statute, regardless of whether the use was framed as testing.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the survivors of a guest passenger killed in a car accident against the driver (Stevens) and his employer (Crown Zellerbach), alleging the driver’s intoxication and willful misconduct. The trial court entered judgment for Stevens based on a jury verdict and granted a nonsuit to the employer; the appellate court affirmed, dismissing the non-appealable portions of the appeal. The court held that the jury instructions on assumption of risk were properly given because substantial evidence supported an inference that the decedent knew the driver was intoxicated before or during the ride and had a reasonable opportunity to exit but did not, and that the defense applied only to the intoxication claim. Because the driver was not liable, the employer could not be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior.

torts & liability

The case involved an action by the stepdaughters of the deceased Elisha Jackson to impose a constructive trust on all property in his estate. They claimed an oral agreement existed between Elisha and their mother Mae that the survivor would leave the property to them, which Elisha breached by executing a later will favoring his widow and new wife. The trial court found the agreement was made and performed by Mae, that Elisha benefited from it, and that the widow was estopped from raising the statute of frauds defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to support the findings and that probate orders setting aside exempt property and a homestead did not bind the claimants' equitable title claims.

family lawpropertyprocedure